All Published Articles

In December 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule prohibiting entities from asserting claims of confidential business information (CBI) for certain documents related to the export, import, and transit of hazardous waste. Manufacturers that have historically relied on assertions of CBI should be aware of this change.

When the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was legislatively ‘modernised’ in June 2016, no one in the legal community doubted litigation was in our collective future. We have not been disappointed.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its legal counsel for these purposes, the US Department of Justice (DoJ), are facing multiple lawsuits in several federal appeals courts and the very real possibility of more litigation deriving from TSCA Section 21 citizen petitions in the light of a recent decision. While none of this is especially unexpected, it is nonetheless disquieting. This article is a quick summary of where the cases stand and a discussion of what is at stake.

The cost of compliance with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) will soon rise. On February 8, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed off on proposed TSCA user fees. As amended by the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, TSCA authorizes the EPA to levy fees on certain chemical manufacturers, including importers and processors, to “provide a sustainable source of funding to defray resources that are available for implementation of new responsibilities under the amended law.” This column summarizes the proposal and its significance.

The new year promises to be a busy one in the chemical area. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hit all of its new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) marks in timely promulgating rules or taking other steps required by the new TSCA.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to implement reporting requirements pertinent to the supply, use and trade of mercury in the United States. This column provides more information and a closer look into the EPA’s October 2017 proposed rule.

Proposition 65 (Prop 65) is very much a part of the “right-to-know” landscape in California and, as we all know, Prop 65 warnings are especially visible in that state. This much is clear. What may be less clear are the sweeping changes in the “clear and reasonable warning” requirements now scheduled to take effect from August 30, 2018. This date may seem like a long way off, but it is right around the corner in terms of coming into compliance with these dramatic changes. This Washington Watch column summarizes the new warning requirements and the reasons why companies need to focus now on these changes.

On 23 June 2016, more than 30 million people voted in a referendum to decide whether the United Kingdom (UK) should ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’ in the European Union (EU). The referendum turnout was 71.8 per cent and the Leave campaign won by 52 per cent to 48 per cent, making ‘Brexit’ an important and imminent probability, with potentially substantial implications for a range of stakeholders, including the chemicals industry.

Between then and now, there have been significant developments in case law and statute, culminating in the triggering of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and the issuing of a White Paper setting out the UK’s strategy for repealing the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA 1972) and ending the supremacy of EU law. The Brexit process and potential outcomes, including ‘knowns and unknowns’, are subject to change and are evolving at an exceptionally rapid pace, and will likely continue to do so. Terminology utilised for important documents and events has changed since the start of the Brexit story in June 2016. Many Brexit-related issues depend significantly or entirely on outcomes of political negotiations, and making any predictions has become a challenging endeavour. The global chemicals industry is well advised, as part of an effort to support regulatory and legal compliance, to monitor regularly news and consultations regarding Brexit

On August 11, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the third Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework final rule in the Federal Register, the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements (EPA, 2017). This final rule is now in effect. This Washington Watch column explains why the rule is important, and what stakeholders should be doing to protect their interests.

California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65) has been a keen area of client interest for years. One question repeatedly asked is “what is a clear and reasonable warning?” The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) released a Questions and Answers for Businesses (Q&A) document specifically covering “clear and reasonable warnings” requirements. The Q&A aims to help companies comply with new Prop 65 notice requirements that become effective next August. This column explains the significance of this Q&A document.

After a decade of trying, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now has in effect a final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) information gathering rule focusing on nanoscale materials. This article explains the final rule, what stakeholders are required to do, and by when.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is the federal gap-filling chemical control law regulating chemical substances used in applications other than food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides, and other uses that are regulated by other federal authorities. Chemical product innovators need to understand how TSCA, significantly amended in 2016, applies to biomass starting material, including industrial microorganisms (such as algae), intermediates, and commercial products, and build TSCA compliance into business timelines and budgets. Doing so will better assure uninterrupted business operations and consistent TSCA compliance.

On October 15, 2017, California governor Jerry Brown (D) signed the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017. The law requires manufacturers of cleaning products to disclose certain chemical ingredients on the product label and on the manufacturer’s website. The online disclosure requirements apply to a designated product sold in California on or after January 1, 2020, while the product label disclosure requirements cover products sold in California on or after January 1, 2021.

Products that embody tried, true, and especially cutting-edge technologies are generally embraced by retailers as sure-fire pathways to marketing success. What’s not to like about best sellers and newer, faster, cleaner, or otherwise improved products? Sometimes overlooked is what is hidden behind the technology curtain -- what is the secret sauce that makes the product faster, cleaner, or better? In marketing products with new modes of action and spiffy new attributes, retailers are part of a product liability chain of which they need to be aware. This paper provides an overview of emerging legal and practical issues pertinent to the inclusion of technologies supporting products marketed to the public.

On October 3, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a final significant new use rule (SNUR) under Section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the chemical substance identified generically as bimodal mixture consisting of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) and other classes of carbon nanotubes (CNT), which was the subject of premanufacture notice (PMN) P-11-482.

On June 22, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the final inventory notification rule under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The rule establishes an electronic notification of chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory that were manufactured/imported for nonexempt commercial purposes during the 10-year time period ending on June 21, 2016, with provision to also allow processor notification. These notifications will be used to distinguish "active" from "inactive" substances. A summary of this rule follows.

On August 11, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the third Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework final rule in the Federal Register, the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements. This final rule is now in effect. Here is why the rule is important, and what stakeholders should be doing to protect their interests.

NIEHS is developing a plan to guide its next five years and seeks broad input. NIEHS has created an online survey, "Trends & Insights: Next Steps for NIEHS," through which stakeholders can provide feedback on the existing Strategic Plan, as well as offer any other relevant comments.

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act significantly amended the Toxic Substances Control Act. The act, which has been in force for just over a year, made substantive changes to multiple sections of TSCA that are proving to be even more consequential than anticipated (new TSCA is identified as Pub. L. No. 114-182 and old TSCA was identified as Pub. L. No. 94-469).

This paper, authored principally by former EPA officials and a practicing TSCA lawyer, all with long experience under old TSCA, provides suggestions for new approaches or ‘‘fixes’’ that could assist the agency and interested groups in moving toward smoother implementation of the new law, achieving policy goals, and ensuring greater transparency. These suggestions are presented in no particular order and in the spirit of urging other stakeholders to also think of creative ways to ensure that new TSCA fulfills Congress’s mandate to develop an effective domestic chemical management program.

On May 30, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit responded to two petitions for review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) conditional registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of a nanosilver pesticide product and vacated that conditional registration. NRDC v. EPA, No. 15-72308. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Center for Food Safety (CFS), and the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) filed petitions in 2015 asking the court to set aside EPA’s final order granting a conditional registration for a nanosilver containing antimicrobial pesticide product named NSPW-L30SWS (NSPW). The court vacated the conditional registration because, according to the court, “EPA failed to support its finding that NSPW was in the public interest.”

Among the many legal, regulatory, and policy issues being watched closely by pesticide registrants as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) long and contentious review of chlorpyrifos registrations continues is the controversy concerning when EPA may appropriately apply a tenfold uncertainty factor pursuant to the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA 10X). This issue centers around EPA’s novel and unprecedented use of epidemiological data and the statutory requirements that govern EPA’s determination that sufficient uncertainty exists to warrant applying the FQPA 10X, not only to chlorpyrifos itself, but to all organophosphate (OP) pesticide products. This issue has drawn much attention and concern from pesticide registrants, and from other interested parties. The issues directly affecting chlorpyrifos have played out not only in EPA’s registration review process for chlorpyrifos, but also in a court challenge to EPA’s decision.

Climate change watchers know that October, 15, 2016, was a historic day for international climate action. On that day, nearly 200 countries reached an agreement to phase down use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) at the 28th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Kigali, Rwanda. The meeting to discuss the Amendment took place from July 15-23, 2016. This seemingly impossible alignment of international interests reflects years of effort. This column summarizes this historic event and its implications.

In July 2017, the European Commission's (EC) Joint Research Center (JRC) published a report entitled Evaluation of the availability and applicability of computational approaches in the safety assessment of nanomaterials: Final report of the Nanocomput project.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made available on May 16, 2017, and requested comment on a draft guidance document, “Guidance on EPA’s Section 8(a) Information Gathering Rule on Nanomaterials in Commerce.” This column discusses the draft guidance.

On July 20, 2017, the Trump Administration published its Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The Agenda includes a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) item (RIN 2070-AJ54) concerning the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) reporting rule for nanoscale materials.

Waters of the United States has been a “fluid” concept for years. It defines the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the United States under the Clean Water Act (CWA). President Trump’s Feb. 28, 2017, Executive Order (EO) directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to rescind and replace the Clean Water Rule (CWR) is the latest development to resolve the question of which surface waters and wetlands may be federally regulated and subjected to CWA permitting. Many U.S. businesses objected to the rule, so this is one action that is less controversial than others the Trump Administration has taken. This article discusses its significance.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued on Jan. 12, 2017, a final rule under Section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) establishing reporting and recordkeeping requirements for certain discrete forms of chemical substances that are manufactured or processed at the nanoscale. This column summarizes the rule.

2016 was full of surprises, two of which are driving much of the environmental agenda for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2017. First, Congress significantly amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in June of 2016. The changes are intended to reform the program to address the widely recognized deficiencies in the law, especially regarding existing chemicals, chemical testing, Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims, and preemption of state actions. EPA has been busy implementing the new law, as the all-important “framework rules” must be issued in final in June 2017. The second surprise event was even more unexpected -- the election of Donald Trump as President. His election is already having a significant impact on environmental law and policy. This column briefly offers some thoughts and predictions on the impact of the new Administration on environmental issues of interest to our readers.

A major change, brought about by the November elections, is the uptick in citizen suit litigation, and lawsuits brought by third parties against the government. Given the current administration’s position on climate change, environmental regulation generally, and the perception that regulations impede economic growth and job development, there has been a significant slowdown in regulatory and administrative activity and the initiation of enforcement actions. NGOs and third-party activists will continue to fill this void by private lawsuits as citizen litigants.

With the recent 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) dataset and the initial interim list of “active” substances released with the February 2017 copy of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory, the magnitude of effort needed for the TSCA Section 8(b)(4) Inventory Reset is becoming clear. Stakeholders should waste no time in preparing to meet their obligations; the final rule was issued in June.

Most people knew candidate Trump was no fan of climate change regulation or the Clean Water Rule (CWR). Mr. Trump’s views on chemical management were never clearly articulated, however. Some may have interpreted this notable silence as support for Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform, given the broad bipartisan support it enjoyed before its enactment last June. Others may have assumed candidate Trump, in the heat of the campaign, was unaware of the significant commercial, legal, and trade implications occasioned by enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety of the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg), the most sweeping legislative overhaul to our domestic chemical management law in four decades. Similar to candidate Trump, President Trump has kept his TSCA cards close to his vest. To the extent money talks, the President’s fiscal year 2018 budget doubles down on slashing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget by over 30 percent. The chemicals program, however, would largely be spared cuts and in fact would get a boost under the Trump budget submitted to Congress in late May, suggesting solid support for ensuring the new law is implemented timely.

On February 24, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. The EO offers opportunities for stakeholders to improve regulations. This article summarizes efforts to implement this EO, and identifies opportunities stakeholders may wish to pursue to eliminate or amend regulatory initiatives they feel have outlived their utility or were ill-conceived from the get-go.

The May 1, 2017, issue of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) TechDirect includes an item on the availability of the Taking Nanotechnological Remediation Processes from Lab Scale to End User Applications for the Restoration of a Clean Environment (NanoRem) Toolbox.

On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The text of the law is available at: http://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2576/text. The law substantially amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and in so doing, fundamentally alters the domestic management of industrial chemicals, the lifeblood of many manufacturing processes. This article summarizes key changes and explains their likely impacts on the manufacturing sector. For the purposes of this article, reference is made to the amended TSCA as “new TSCA.”

On March 29, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its initial inventory report of mercury supply, use and trade in the United States pursuant to the requirements of the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This article outlines this development in the context of mercury regulation under the TSCA.

On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg). The new law amended significantly the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and in so doing, is redefining supply chain relationships, rewriting the rules of engagement for due diligence in mergers and acquisitions, reopening debate on new avenues in product liability and tort law, and raising important questions regarding right-to-know vs. confidential business information (CBI). TSCA, as amended, is no longer an arcane chemical statute that only chemists, consultants, and counsel for chemical manufacturers need to understand. We discuss below the significant changes in commercial transactions, supply chain relationships, and related legal areas of which Section members need to be aware, anticipate, and address. We also briefly consider TSCA and its alignment and differences with the European Union’s (EU) Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) program, and speculate on the impact Brexit might have on chemical management.

Implementation of the newly amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), signed into law last June, is in full swing. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working hard to meet statutorily imposed deadlines for promulgating three “framework” rules by June 2017. To date, the EPA is on target. This column discusses the three framework rules.

Last year was full of surprises, two of which will drive much of the agenda in 2017 for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). First, Congress significantly amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Although many thought the chances of successful TSCA legislation were slim, the second surprise event was even more unexpected — the election of Donald Trump as President.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally concluded January 12, 2017, a ten-year effort to issue a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) rule establishing reporting and recordkeeping requirements for certain discrete forms of chemical substances manufactured or processed at nanoscale. This column summarizes the rule. Reports are due to the EPA no later than May 12, 2018. The final rule is effective May 12, 2017.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published a Federal Register notice on February 10, 2017, inviting comment on a proposed information collection plan, "Survey of Engineered Nanomaterial Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Practices." The goal of the project is to assess the relevance and impact of NIOSH's contribution to guidelines and risk mitigation practices for safe handling of engineered nanomaterials in the workplace. The intended use of the data is to inform NIOSH's research agenda to enhance its relevance and impact on worker safety and health in the context of engineered nanomaterials.

Each year, millions of consumers, including large numbers of children, are exposed to unknown quantities of anti-mold pesticides when they open a shoebox. Although the active ingredient in these mostly unregistered anti-mold pesticides is undisclosed and the products are marketed as all natural, many stickers contain allyl isothiocyanate (AITC). These stickers have not been registered for this use, nor has this use, or the resulting exposure to consumers, been reviewed for safety by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), or by any other regulatory agency.

It’s unlikely that shoe retailers and distributors are aware of the staggering tort liability that could be hibernating in shoeboxes. Someday, millions of unsuspecting and unprotected consumers, including children, could allege they were harmed by products few ever noticed. Even more alarming is that any consumer claims of injury from exposure to an unregistered pesticidal agent cannot be subject to preemption under FIFRA Section 24(b), 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b) because the products are unregistered and have not been reviewed by EPA. This puts U.S. distributors or retailers at risk, especially if they knew that an unregistered pesticide was present in the product and failed to warn consumers.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published a report entitled Alternative Testing Strategies in Risk Assessment of Manufactured Nanomaterials: Current State of Knowledge and Research Needs to Advance Their Use.

On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. No. 114-182, and in so doing significantly revised the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the first time since its enactment in 1976. This article reviews and analyzes TSCA as amended and focuses narrowly on how new TSCA specifically impacts nanoscale materials. Although the new TSCA dramatically changes how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluates and manages industrial chemicals, including nanoscale chemicals, the absence of words or phrases such as nano or nanoscale materials means that there are no specific or additional requirements that apply explicitly to such materials. This was a significant shift from many of the earlier TSCA reform bills, which explicitly addressed nanoscale materials by proposing new definitions such as “substance characteristics” and “special substance characteristics” that included concepts such as size or size distribution; shape; surface structure; and reactivity. The new TSCA is noticeably silent on this subject and does not distinguish nanoscale materials or treat such materials differently from other chemical substances regulated under TSCA.

Nanotechnology, biotechnology, and synthetic biology are the ploughs and tractors of the twenty-first century. These precision farming tools are ensuring a sustainable food supply otherwise threatened by climate change and population growth, among other global challenges. Genetically modified E. coli is being used to produce synthetically derived pheromones, substances beneficially used in agricultural applications to attract, capture, and eliminate harmful pests. Nanopesticides and nanofertilizers are being effectively used in drought-stricken regions, eliminating or minimizing the need for conventional agricultural chemicals. These and similar technologies are essential to enable today’s agricultural professionals to compete with an increasingly unforgiving Mother Nature and an ever-increasing demand for food.

These emerging technologies do not come without potential risks, however. How to regulate them is a subject upon which stakeholders disagree.

Against this backdrop, this article considers emerging agricultural technologies, and discusses domestic agricultural oversight systems and their ability to keep pace with innovation. As discussed below, the domestic governance system is capable of addressing comprehensively the potential risks posed by these evolving technologies. The system, however, could be improved by better integration of measures to educate policy makers and regulators on these technologies, and greater involvement by the private sector in facilitating a predictable flow of information on these technologies to all stakeholders.

On December 12, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a long-awaited final rule to reduce exposure to formaldehyde vapors from certain wood products produced domestically or imported into the United States. Formaldehyde is found in the adhesives used in a range of composite wood products. This column summarizes the new rule.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released on December 20, 2016, a white paper entitled Sustainability in the Workplace: A New Approach for Advancing Worker Safety and Health. See https://www.osha.gov/sustainability/docs/OSHA_sustainability_paper.pdf The paper highlights the importance of including worker safety and health in the growing movement toward sustainability and corporate responsibility. According to the paper, research on sustainability does not include occupational safety and health.

October 15, 2016, was a historic day for international climate action: nearly 200 countries reached an agreement to phase out use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) at the 28th meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol in Kigali, Rwanda. This column summarizes this historic event and its implications.

The Montreal Protocol is the international treaty designed to protect the earth’s ozone layer by requiring the phasing out of production and use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), substances believed to contribute to ozone depletion, many of which also contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) production. By many accounts, the Montreal Protocol is one of the most successful international agreements ever implemented.